Swing States

[KCFlyer]

If these people did the same thing at an Anti-Kerry rally, I would hope they'd get the same kind of attention.

What'd they do again? You think tbey said "Bush oughta be shot".

yes. If the FBI thinks that I may be a terror suspect, or that I am planning an attack on this country, please investigate me. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I'd rather them do that, and find what my neighbor down the street might be hiding... so that when you and I are on our way to work, or at the public library, or at a sporting event, we will be less likely to be attacked by a terrorist. So I guess in your world that makes me German. I never knew, go figure. Guess I ought to go rent Schindler's List.

You still miss the point of the patriot act...they don't have to suspect you of terrorism. They don't have to suspect you of plotting against the presidents life. They have the right to gather information on you...your spouse...your kids...all without your knowledge All without any "reasonable cause". But...you think that Bush's poop don't stink. So you'll go along with anything his adminsitration wants...in the name of terrorism. Look out second amendment - Cheney's gettin' that gleam in his eye again.

 

[sentrido]

The irony of "conservatives"(I'm assuming) arguing FOR the patriot act caught my attention.So here is a link to how some conservatives feel about it:


http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFre...?ID=12632&c=206

Heck, even Newt don't liky:

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House ("The Policies of War: Refocus the mission," San Francisco Chronicle, 11/11/03)

"We must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed, that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon."

"I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes unrelated to terrorism."

"Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations unconnected to terrorism or national security.

In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton acts of violence.

We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?

I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing "mission creep" into areas outside of national security."

My mind was made up when Asshcroft used it to supeona womans medical records just to see if they had abortions.

 

[AA-MCI]

Were you under the impression that I was "questioning your patriotism"?

I'll let you answer yourself on that one:

Feel the same way about our troops too?

[post="179621"][/post]​

With all due respect, you were the one who made the concentration camp comparison, not me.

No, the comparison I made was to the environment that allowed the camps to exist in the first place, not to the camps themselves. I'm surprised I still have to explain that to you, you seemed smarter than that.

I am personally insulted by your response, and your suggestion that you are better because you "did your time in uniform" blindly suggests that who you speak to has not done the same or more.

Not at all. It says that having been one of the 'our troops' you were accusing me of defaming, I earned my right to free speech. If you find that insulting then I would say you were looking for something to be offended by and you found it. Enjoy!

Your Nazi comparison has nothing to do with the topic or the thread, your "Bush Leaguer" comment is inaccurate and erroneous, and your entire preceeding statement reeks of self-pity and arrogance.

Considering that the discussion veered from the topic of this thread several pages ago and that my statement about the Germans surrendering their freedoms in exchange for security directly addresses the discussion started on page 5 when KCFLYER brought up the KC Star story about the two college students, I'd say your assessment is incorrect and irrelevant. "Self-pity" and "arrogance"? No. Determination to see that such things never happen again? Yes.

My comment about the Bush Leaguers like Cheney who avoided service themselves but are so willing to send the sons and daughters of others, as long as it's nobody they know, was quite accurate. You just don't like it.

Watch a little too much Conspiracy Theory lately?

Nope. Just too many back door assaults on civil rights.

Do you honestly believe these people will become unemployable?

Lets look at the article from page 5 again:

"It keeps victimizing people at home. That intimidation was present with authorities videotaping protesters Tuesday during Bush's visit in Lee's Summit, and it singled out University of Missouri-Kansas City students Nathan Hoffmann and Erica Wiggins this summer.

Hoffmann said FBI agents visited his home, neighbors and job asking questions. It was in the run-up to the political conventions. The agents wanted to know whether they were planning violent acts at the conventions or at the presidential inauguration.

Hoffmann said they had a photo of him, but he didn't know how they got it. The agents knew he and his roommate were talking with someone about moving into their basement.

“Nobody knew about that,â€￾ Hoffmann said. They could only have gotten it from a wiretap on their phone, he said.

Jeff Lanza, special agent and spokesman with the FBI, would say only that the FBI has to check all possible terrorist threats.

Wiggins, who didn't talk to the FBI, said a protest the two attended in Denver probably landed them on a watch list.

“I think it's pretty shocking,â€￾ Wiggins said.

If you were his employer, would you look at this employee differently? If you were a prospective employer, would you hire someone the FBI was investigating? If you were the one being investigated, how would you feel if the only public thing the FBI would say when asked about your case was that "they had to check out all terrorist threats"? Think your prospective employers like that sort of thing?

And I'm sure they already know quite well why they're being investigated, that is if they are guilty of something. And if they're not, then they'll be on their way.

Apparently to you being investigated implies guilt, something the 4th amendment was written to address, at least until the patriot act came along. Either that or they aren't guilty and should just relax and wait until the investigation is over. Well then, everything's great, except for the potential damage done, regardless of guilt or innocence.

If these people did the same thing at an Anti-Kerry rally, I would hope they'd get the same kind of attention.

And what, exactly, did they do? That's the point, we don't know, they don't know and the FBI never has to tell anybody!

There were no charges, in this case. But to answer your question, yes. If the FBI thinks that I may be a terror suspect, or that I am planning an attack on this country, please investigate me.

How would you feel if someone you knew, maybe a estranged spouse, told the FBI that you were planning terrorist attacks? Since you never have to be told what the charge is or who the source is, you'd never know why you were being investigated. If you found out at all. Your employer would only know that the FBI was asking questions about you. Maybe, assuming you're an airline employee, your next FAA-required 10 year background check turned up a flag from the FBI and you weren't allowed in the AOA so you couldn't go to work. Still sound good to you?

I have absolutely nothing to hide.

You miss the point, that doesn't matter. The patriot act isn't limited to terrorism or anything else. It isn't about having something to hide, it's about having to hide anything.

I'd rather them do that, and find what my neighbor down the street might be hiding... so that when you and I are on our way to work, or at the public library, or at a sporting event, we will be less likely to be attacked by a terrorist.

Our nation has faced greater enemies before without gutting the Constitution, why do we need to now? Threats of internal terrorism? The Germans blew up an ammo terminal in New York harbor during WWI, yet we didn't allow the government to see what we read or monitor our conversations. Why now?

So I guess in your world that makes me German.

When asked why they knew nothing about the camps, the Germans responded almost unanimously that they 'didn't question such things because they were good Germans'. Since you are willing to make a similar trade, it's not my 'world' you need to be worried about, but the real one.

I never knew, go figure. Guess I ought to go rent Schindler's List.

[post="179700"][/post]​

Schindler's list is about the camps and what I'm talking about happened outside the camps but considering your apparent (to use your favorite word) 'ignorance' about the subject, it might help.

 

[USAir757]

What'd they do again? You think tbey said "Bush oughta be shot".

But the point is that we don't know. I would be willing to bet they did, as that kind of rhetoric is used more and more these days, but I'm speculating.

But...you think that Bush's poop don't stink. So you'll go along with anything his adminsitration wants...in the name of terrorism.

That's not true. There are definitely things about his administrative decisions that I don't agree with... most especially and recently the assault weapons ban. I'm not a "down the line" Republican or Bush supporter, like you I just believe what I believe. And we're forced to take for truth what our leaders tell us, just as we'll have to do when Kerry gets elected. That's why we're at war in Iraq, whether you believe it to be good or not... because we listened to our leader. And there have been mistakes in his presidency, no doubt. But I challenge you to find one president who did a perfect job without any mistakes, regrets, or wrong turns.

 

[USAir757]

No, the comparison I made was to the environment that allowed the camps to exist in the first place, not to the camps themselves.

So by my suggesting that the kids must have done something to warrant investigation, you relate my thinking to that of the German's during the holocaust. Am I getting closer?

"Self-pity" and "arrogance"? No. Determination to see that such things never happen again? Yes.

Spare me the pathetic attempts to question my patriotism, I did my time in uniform - unlike most of the Bush Leaguers..... My Grandparents died in the camps along with millions of others because the German people didn't question those in authority and assumed that whatever was being done was all for their protection. Now you want us to do the same thing.

The fact that you're using your time in uniform to attempt to give yourself an upper-hand in the argument is arrogant. You bringing your personal family's suffering into the argument is an act of self-pity. This, of course, is only my opinion. And relating our situation to the holocaust? "Now you want us to do the same thing?" Well I don't believe it's the same thing at all. It's just a bad reference. Let me ask you, are people being brutally murdered? Are they being starved, gased, and all of the abhorable things that happened to the Jews? Not even close... they're being investigated for possible links to terror or plans to create havoc somewhere. That's how I understand it. So if I misunderstood you at first, please excuse me. But don't make a comment like that and not expect somebody to go up in arms trying to figure out what you meant.

If you were his employer, would you look at this employee differently? If you were a prospective employer, would you hire someone the FBI was investigating? If you were the one being investigated, how would you feel if the only public thing the FBI would say when asked about your case was that "they had to check out all terrorist threats"? Think your prospective employers like that sort of thing?

It was their decision to release their own names to the public media. The FBI certainly doesn't release that kind information. And the simple fact that somebody is being investigated does not mean they cannot be defended, you can bet that there were plenty of lawyers involved in this one.

How would you feel if someone you knew, maybe a estranged spouse, told the FBI that you were planning terrorist attacks? Since you never have to be told what the charge is or who the source is, you'd never know why you were being investigated. If you found out at all. Your employer would only know that the FBI was asking questions about you. Maybe, assuming you're an airline employee, your next FAA-required 10 year background check turned up a flag from the FBI and you weren't allowed in the AOA so you couldn't go to work. Still sound good to you?

No, it doesn't sound good. Especially if I had reason to shake in my boots. But if my FAA background check turns up an investigation, without any charges, then I will be free to work. Unless, of course, I am being investigated for "plans to hijack a commercial aircraft", or something of that nature. I understand where you are coming from with that, but I still think it beats the alternative of not doing an investigation and missing the people that do want to harm us.

Our nation has faced greater enemies before without gutting the Constitution, why do we need to now? Threats of internal terrorism? The Germans blew up an ammo terminal in New York harbor during WWI, yet we didn't allow the government to see what we read or monitor our conversations. Why now?

I am not in favor of "gutting the Constitution." I believe we are due to give up some civil liberties because this war involves civilians... terrorist civilians (not soldiers) with plans to kill innocent civilian Americans, by way of detonating explosives in crowded places, tearing down infrastructure, etc. Not blowing up an ammo terminal... these are non-military people aiming to kill non-military people. Regardless of whether you agree with the Patriot act, this is a new kind of war, wouldn't you agree? I think that is why now there are some unprecedented things happening in our country.

I apologize for the debate taking on more of a personal stance than it should have... I come here to discuss the issues and hear what other people think, so as to broaden my own opinions with the input of others. Sentrido... thank you for the ACLU link, it was interesting to read what some people are saying about this act and why the act itself may not be the best thing for America. Though, I have to admit, I think that was my first trip to their website.

 

[AA-MCI]

So by my suggesting that the kids must have done something to warrant investigation, you relate my thinking to that of the German's during the holocaust. Am I getting closer?

[post="179849"][/post]​

A little. The camps did not appear overnight. It was a steady process of the Nazis taking an action against the Jews, and others, then the German people not reacting to those atrocities. It began with the assumption that in certain cases the normal due process and civil rights could be suspended for the good of the state. "They must have done something if they're being investigated" is a good first step as it takes care of the "Innocent until proven guilty" assumption our legal system is supposed to be based on.

The fact that you're using your time in uniform to attempt to give yourself an upper-hand in the argument is arrogant. You

The fact that I mentioned my time in uniform or the deaths of my Grandparents was in response to YOUR attempt to imply that I thought that either our troops or our police, or both, were Nazis - nothing more. "Upper hand in the argument"? No. Self-defense? Yes.

And relating our situation to the holocaust? "Now you want us to do the same thing?" Well I don't believe it's the same thing at all.

Again, I am relating our situation to the environment that LED TO the Holocaust BEING POSSIBLE. I don't know how I can explain it any clearer for you. It is also the type of environment that allowed someone like Joe McCarthy to destroy the lives of thousands of people with only rumors and charges with no basis in fact.

Let me ask you, are people being brutally murdered? Are they being starved, gased, and all of the abhorable things that happened to the Jews?

No, and I never said they were. I have repeatedly explained what I did mean, something others apparently understood readily, but you wish to pretend that my statement was about the camps. Talk about trying to gain the 'upper hand in the argument'.

Not even close... they're being investigated for possible links to terror or plans to create havoc somewhere. That's how I understand it.

As are thousands of others, most of whom never know it. They never know that their employers decision to let them go had less to do with finances than it did with the two guys in suits who were asking questions about them. They never know why it is they get the full strip search every time they fly or why their friends aren't returning their calls anymore.

It was their decision to release their own names to the public media.

I hope more people in their situation do just that. It is the only way we will ever know how many of these investigations are conducted now that the judicial oversight of the 4th amendment is removed.

The FBI certainly doesn't release that kind information.

Yet when questioned about it will only say that they were investigating a terrorist threat. For the innocent do you think that should be enough?

And the simple fact that somebody is being investigated does not mean they cannot be defended, you can bet that there were plenty of lawyers involved in this one.

That assumes that those investigated KNOW they're being investigated and that the FBI is WILLING to admit that such an investigation exists or the scope of such investigation, assumptions with no basis in the patriot act.

No, it doesn't sound good. Especially if I had reason to shake in my boots. But if my FAA background check turns up an investigation, without any charges, then I will be free to work.

Assuming that the investigation is closed at the time your background check is done, maybe. Do you think they'd let you pass if the investigation was still in progress?

Unless, of course, I am being investigated for "plans to hijack a commercial aircraft", or something of that nature.

One of the people I worked with for years recently found himself on the outside looking in when his name matched one on the TSA watch list. It took three months to get him back to work even though all he had done was have a certain name. You need to understand that "plans to hijack a commercial aircraft" or 'terrorist threats' aren't required to get you investigated anymore.

I understand where you are coming from with that, but I still think it beats the alternative of not doing an investigation and missing the people that do want to harm us.

I agree with Ben Franklin that those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither. I believe that were Al Qaida to infiltrate someone into this country to wreak havoc, they would be so squeaky clean that any investigation would turn up nothing. Meanwhile, we will have traded away our birthright for nothing. Al Qaida doesn't have to do anything now because we're doing things to ourselves that make us more like them, and that is their real goal.

Not blowing up an ammo terminal... these are non-military people aiming to kill non-military people.

The US ammo loading facility at Black Tom island in New Jersey was blown up, in July 1916, not by soldiers but by civilian German saboteurs, or 'terrorists'. The explosion was so great that there was shrapnel damage to the Statue of Liberty miles away and windows throughout lower Manhattan were shattered. Several other munitions plants were also hit in the years leading up to the US entry into WWI. Their aims were to disrupt US munitions production certainly but they showed as little compunction regarding civilian casualties as Al Qaida have demonstrated.

Did we erase part of the 4th amendment then?

Regardless of whether you agree with the Patriot act, this is a new kind of war, wouldn't you agree?

No, it is one of the oldest types of war, actually. We have faced the threat of domestic terrorism before, with far less advantage on our side, without surrendering our rights, why now?

I think that is why now there are some unprecedented things happening in our country.

I'll agree that the things happening to civil rights in this country are unprecedented, short of martial law. However, unlike martial law, many of these changes are permanent.

I apologize for the debate taking on more of a personal stance than it should have...

As do I.

 

[NWA/AMT]

It seems terrorism provides an excuse for many things:

Russian Patriot Act

Some excerpts:

"President Vladimir Putin ordered an overhaul of Russia's political system Monday, reacting to a three-week onslaught of terrorism with plans for the most extensive political shakeup since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The former KGB spy's directive for revamping the way Russia is governed included an end to the direct popular election of governors and a major rearrangment in the rules for selecting members of parliament, already deeply loyal to the Kremlin."

and:

"More than half the dead at the school were children. Ninety people died when suspected Chechen women suicide bombers blew up two Russian airliners in flight. A woman suicide bomber killed nine others near a subway station in Moscow.

Curiously, however, the Russian leader's proposals focused largely on electoral changes. Putin said he would propose legislation abolishing the election of local governors by popular vote. Instead they would be nominated by the president and confirmed by local legislatures."

All of which will do nothing to prevent terrorism, only take power away from the people, just like the Patriot Act.

 

[USAir757]

All of which will do nothing to prevent terrorism, only take power away from the people, just like the Patriot Act.

I see where you all are coming from now. But with regard to solutions to this problem, I still have yet to see anything viable.

I believe that were Al Qaida to infiltrate someone into this country to wreak havoc, they would be so squeaky clean that any investigation would turn up nothing.

So why even bother having an FBI, Director of Homeland Security, CIA, etc. We might as well take'em down and investigate one another on our own to decide who and where is safe. While tightening the borders, immigration, and customs may help, it will not come close to solving the problems. There are dozens of ways to get people and weapons into this country, through our ports, unauthorized entry through Canada or Mexico, or even the Bahamas. (did you know that once a boat comes in from the Bahamas to Florida, they have 48-hours to report to customs? I guess they think that is barely enough time to unload your nuclear arsenal). So long and short of it, without the Patriot Act, once you get into the United States, you are home free. You can sit tight and just wait for the call from UBL or whoever, and not have to worry about anyone coming into your place to search you.

KC, AA-MCI, sentrido etc... you've convinced me that the Patriot Act has its downsides and its flaws... But please explain to me how to make this country safer without it. I see where there are certain elements that can be removed, so we need not cover bases we've already discussed. Moving forward, what are we going to do with the terrorists that are among us, before they move onto us?

 

[AA-MCI]

KC, AA-MCI, sentrido etc... you've convinced me that the Patriot Act has its downsides and its flaws... But please explain to me how to make this country safer without it.

[post="179932"][/post]​

If you read the 9-11 commission report you see a litany of laws the terrorists broke but you also see that our main failing was in not enforcing the laws we had. If we had done that we would have found the plot, and using the domestic surveillance laws already available, would quite probably have been able to prevent most of the events of 9-11 if not all.

Enforcing the laws we already had and using the intelligence avenues already available to us don't require any of the secrecy or the loss of rights that the patriot act requires. Adopting the changes that the 9-11 commission recommended would make us more secure without having us give up any of our liberties, indeed it would increase oversight to ensure that the security apparatus stays in control.

The changes we made to the cockpit doors, to passenger security and to the flight crews response to terrorism were not part of the patriot act or done in secret but they will go a long way to prevent anyone from taking over an airplane again. We need to fully screen all cargo as well, although like the enhanced passenger security that is something the airlines cannot afford to do themselves.

However, we need to know that we will never completely stop terrorists who wish us harm, no matter how many rights we surrender. There is no total 100% solution and we need to realize that or risk the false sense of security we had on September 10th 2001.

 

[NWA/AMT]

It bears repeating that the box cutters used by the 9/11 terrorists were allowed on board our aircraft under the rules in place at the time, even though they were technically banned. The terrorists didn't have to go to the library to find that out, so searching their library records and all the other things allowed under the Patriot Act would have turned up nothing. They were already breaking dozens of laws that WERE on the books but we were still unable to stop them.

Enforce the laws in place, realize that it takes manpower to enforce them and staff accordingly without worrying whether they might join unions or not. Both the police and firefighters who died in the WTC were made up of union members, as were the Paramedics and many of the others killed. It didn't stop them from doing their jobs and it won't stop the TSA.

 

[FredF]

Enforce the laws in place,

[post="180630"][/post]​

I am just wondering if you support this philosophy regarding so called "Gun Control Laws"?

 

[diogenes]

I am just wondering if you support this philosophy regarding so called "Gun Control Laws"?

[post="181322"][/post]​

Yes, I do. I've also heard Wayne LaPierre of the NRA say the same thing.

 

[NWA/AMT]

I am just wondering if you support this philosophy regarding so called "Gun Control Laws"?

[post="181322"][/post]​

Speaking as a Life Member of the NRA, yes I do.